Reading too much into my column |

Reading too much into my column

John Hannon

In a recent column I said, “It is my opinion that marriage was invented for those who were wired property.” Tamara Miller took this statement, a few others, and the lead in “Homosexuality and other aberrations” and ran with them. Unfortunately, she was running around in circles and read into my essay things that just weren’t there. She referred to the column as “hogwash.” She washed a few hogs in her rebuttal.

I read through my column several times and couldn’t find where I implied that homosexuals are “malfunctioning” human beings. Using The New American Webster Handy College Dictionary as a source, I would describe homosexuals as an aberration. The fact that there are other aberrations, some of which are more extreme or unusual, does not alter the fact that homosexuality fits into the definition. To be characterized as being ignorant and cruel for so believing is … well … ignorant and cruel.

Once again, a read through my column did not disclose a belief that marriage’s sole purpose is for creating children. I do believe marriage has two purposes, one of which is procreation and the other is mutual love and satisfaction. Some heterosexual couples cannot have children for a variety of physical reasons, including menopause. Some heterosexual couples just choose not to have children. Their reasons are unimportant. I have no problem with heterosexual couples who cannot procreate or choose not to.

“I think (John Hannon) completely intends to find an elaborate way to justify discrimination against gays,” a pulledout quote highlighted in Tamara’s column is an assumption that she has made that just is not accurate. We all know what Felix Unger had to say about those who assume things. Incidentally, the highlighted statement was also contained in the text. I wondered why it highlighted and why it was my name was put in parenthesis.

For the record, I do not feel that it is discriminatory to homosexuals to believe that marriage was intended for heterosexual couples. If homosexuals choose to live as a couple in a committed way this is none of anyone’s business, including mine. Once again, I have no problem with this. Homosexual (I don’t know why this adjective became synonymous with gay) couples have legal access to define who can inherit their property or make life choices for partners. I do have to agree with Mr. Webster, however, that such a union does not meet the definition of marriage.

I know that some homosexual couples have adopted children or produced children through artificial insemination. Because this might create problems for the children, I don’t think this is a good idea. In my opinion, there should not be legislation to control either process.

Tamara says, “There are two definitions of marriage in American society: the religious definition and the legal definition.” As I’m not sure what she’s saying, I’m going to stick with the simple definition given in the dictionary. Essentially, marriage is a contract between a man and a woman, an agreement, if you will. The state became involved for recordkeeping mostly; it does not legalize marriage. Ditto for the religious involvement; some couples choose to have their unions sanctified by a religious ceremony.

At this point I think we’ve both washed enough hogs, boss lady. Actually, it appears to me that we are more of the same mind than opposed. To answer the question at the end of your column where you say, “… two people of the same sex wanting to grow old together, to care for each other, to share their lives with each other. Why would anyone want to stand in the way of that?” I don’t know why. I certainly wouldn’t.

Just don’t wheel me down to the next cow. VT

John Hannon is an Eagle resident and a regular columnist for The Vail Trail. E-mail comments about this column to

Support Local Journalism

Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User

Trending - News

See more